managing multi chamber tool productivity
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 104 Views
  • Uploaded on

Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity. Bruce Auches, Gulsher Grewal, Peter Silverman Intel Corporation Santa Clara, Ca. This paper appears in: Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and Workshop, 1995. ASMC 95 Proceedings. IEEE/SEMI 1995

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity' - gore


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
managing multi chamber tool productivity

Managing Multi-chamber Tool Productivity

Bruce Auches, Gulsher Grewal, Peter Silverman

Intel Corporation Santa Clara, Ca.

This paper appears in: Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and Workshop, 1995. ASMC 95 Proceedings. IEEE/SEMI 1995

Publication Date: 13-15 Nov. 1995 Page(s): 240 – 247

OR Seminar Presentation

Teacher: Pros. 陳茂生, Pros. 阮約翰

Student: 937807 張幼蘭 2005/4/21

introduction
Introduction
  • Because the operational economic benefits, Multi-chamber tools became popular nearly in a decade.
  • Used in Thin-

film, Etching,

Testing fields.

measurements of productivity

PM

Various run scenarios

PM

Time

Run/PM cycle

Measurements of Productivity
  • Run Rate: output wafer per hour (wph)
  • Run/PM Cycle

Motivation: help tool user to make decision of repairing or ignoring failure chamber that maximize productivity.

delimit problem boundary 1 3
Delimit Problem Boundary (1/3)
  • Focus on parallel configuration.
delimit problem boundary 2 3
Delimit Problem Boundary (2/3)
  • Parallel processing mode can run by other available chambers.
delimit problem boundary 3 3
Delimit Problem Boundary (3/3)
  • Scheduled PM is triggered by fixed processing wafer quantity.
    • Quantity base PM: metal deposition, poly etching…
    • Time base PM: photo exposure
responses of unexpected chamber failure incident 1 3

PM

PM

Time

Chamber Failure

Run/PM cycle

Responses of Unexpected Chamber Failure Incident (1/3)
  • Full Cluster Operation (FCO): take down tool completely to repair failure chamber.
  • Necessary if:
    • Central component fail
    • Cannot repair while the rest tool run

Take down to repair

Full Run

Full Run

responses of unexpected chamber failure incident 2 3

PM

PM

Time

Chamber Failure

Run/PM cycle

Responses of Unexpected Chamber Failure Incident (2/3)
  • Partial Cluster Operation (PCO): defer to repair failure chamber and keep good chambers running until next PM.
  • Necessary if:
    • Cannot repair while the rest tool run

Defer repair and keep Partial Run

Full Run

responses of unexpected chamber failure incident 3 3

PM

PM

Time

Chamber Failure

Run/PM cycle

Responses of Unexpected Chamber Failure Incident (3/3)
  • Run/Repair Operation (RRO): repair failure chamber while the rest tool runs.
  • May or may not be feasible depending on safety issue and failure position.

Repair with Partial Run

Full Run

Full Run

fixed variables 1 2
Fixed Variables (1/2)
  • Tool Run Rate
    • Full Cluster Run Rate (FCRR)
    • Partial Cluster Run Rate (PCRR)
    • As FCRR decreases, FCO is favored.
  • Mean Wafers between PM (MWBPM)
    • Visiting wafer quantity between PM for each chamber.
    • As MWBPM increases, FCO is favored.
fixed variables 2 2
Fixed Variables (2/2)
  • Major PM Duration (tPM)
    • As long as one chamber finished MWBPM wafers, major PM is triggered.
    • As tPM decreases, FCO is favored.
  • Number of Process Modules (n)
    • Count “Parallel Path”
    • As n decreases, FCO is favored.
failure dependent variables
Failure-dependent Variables
  • Time to Repair (MTTR)
    • Duration of repairing failure chambers
    • As MTTR decreases, FCO is favored.
  • Wafer Count (%F * MWBPM)
    • Processed wafers quantity before chamber failed.
    • As %F increases, FCO is favored.
output evaluation formulas 1 4
Output Evaluation Formulas(1/4)
  • W = number of wafers processed in a complete “run/PM” cycle
  • C = total time in a “run/PM” cycle
  • Output = W/C
  • Higher output is favored
output evaluation formulas 2 4
Output Evaluation Formulas(2/4)
  • FCO
    • WFC = MWBPM * n
    • CFC = tBFFC + MTTR + tAFFC + tPM
      • tBFFC: Time before failure

tBFFC = (%F * MWBPM * n) / FCRR

      • tAFFC: Time after failure

tAFFC = ( ( 1 - %F ) * MWBPM * n) / FCRR

output evaluation formulas 3 4
Output Evaluation Formulas(3/4)
  • PCO
    • WPC = WBFPC + WAFPC
      • WBFPC = MWBPM * n * %F
      • WAFPC = MWBPM * ( n–1 ) * ( 1- %F ), assume one chamber/path fail for example.
    • CFC = tBFFC + tAFFC + tPM
      • tBFFC = (%F * MWBPM * n) / FCRR
      • tAFFC = ( ( 1 - %F ) * MWBPM * (n-1) ) / PCRR
output evaluation formulas 4 4
Output Evaluation Formulas(4/4)
  • RRO
    • WRR = WBFRR + WDFRR + WAFRR
      • WBFRR = MWBPM * n * %F
      • WDFRR = MTTR * PCRR

If MTTR is long enough that other good chambers/paths reach PM, then WDFRR = WAFPC.

      • WAFRR = [ MWBPM - WBFRR/n - WDFRR/(n-1) ] * n
    • CFC = tBFRR + MTTR + tAFRR + tPM
      • tBFRR = (%F * MWBPM * n) / FCRR
      • tAFRR = WAFRR / FCRR
example 1 3
Example (1/3)
  • Values for variables:
    • n = 2
    • FCRR = 20 wph (wafers per hour)
    • PCRR = 10 wph
    • tPM = 10 hr (hours)
    • MWBPM = 500 wafers per chamber/path
    • %F = 20%
    • MTTR = 10 hr
example 2 3
Example (2/3)
  • Output calculation:
    • FCO: 1000 wafers / 70 hr = 14.3 wph
    • PCO: 600 wafers / 60 hr = 10.0 wph
    • RRO: 900 wafers / 60 hr = 15.0 wph
  • RRO is the best decision if it is feasible; otherwise, FCO is suggested to choose.
  • Deferring repair would cause 30% of FCO output loss and 50% of RRO output loss.
sensitivity analysis 1 4
Sensitivity Analysis (1/4)
  • At most time, the RRO is the best strategy; PCO become the best when the MTTF is longer than the time of processing (1-%F) wafers.
    • In previous example, the “break-even point” of RRO and PCO is at %F = 80%; FCO and PCO is at 72%.
sensitivity analysis 3 4
Sensitivity Analysis (3/4)
  • Longer MTTR or later failure timing (bigger %F) lead to choose PCO; or else, lead to choose FCO.
    • Using the data in previous example, it can be plot a “break-even curve” of FCO and PCO corresponding to %F and MTTF. Above the curve PCO should be employed; below the curve FCO should be employed.
conclusion
Conclusion
  • Tools should be designed to enable the RRO where successfully maximize output in most cases.
  • PCO availability should be minimized in most cases. The root causes of the premature failures should be aggressively sought out and fixed.
  • If RRO is not feasible, tool user should calculate the “break-even curve” to help make decision more quickly.
further study
Further Study
  • Multiple multi-chamber tool repair decision process
  • Other site unbalance problems
ad